Organic agriculture and the conventionalization

Organic agriculture and the conventionalization

Ó Springer 2007
Agriculture and Human Values (2008) 25:95–106
DOI 10.1007/s10460-007-9073-1
Organic agriculture and the conventionalization hypothesis: A case study
from West Germany
Henning Best
Institute for Applied Social Research, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany
Accepted in revised form December 29, 2006
Abstract. The recent growth in organic farming has given rise to the so-called ‘‘conventionalization hypothesis,’’ the
idea that organic farming is becoming a slightly modified model of conventional agriculture. Using survey data
collected from 973 organic farmers in three German regions during the spring of 2004, some implications of the
conventionalization hypothesis are tested. Early and late adopters of organic farming are compared concerning farm
structure, environmental concern, attitudes to organic farming, and membership in organic-movement organizations.
The results indicate that organic farming in the study regions indeed exhibits signs of incipient conventionalization.
On average, newer farms are more specialized and slightly larger than established ones and there is a growing
proportion of farmers who do not share pro-environmental attitudes. Additionally, a number, albeit small, of very
large, highly specialized farms have adopted organic agriculture in the last years. However, the vast majority of
organic farmers, new and old ones included, still show a strong pro-environmental orientation.
Key words: Attitudes, Conventionalization, Environmental concern, Organic agriculture, Organic farming, Organic
movement, Values
Henning Best holds a MA in Sociology, History, and Ethnology from the University of Cologne, Germany in 2002. He
acquired a PhD in Economics and Social Sciences from the University of Cologne in 2006. From 2002 to 2004 he was
research associate at the Research Institute for Sociology, University of Cologne. Since 2004 he is researcher and
lecturer at the Institute for Applied Social Research, University of Cologne. His research interests include
environmental sociology, social inequality, and quantitative methods of social research.
Introduction
At first glance, the recent development of organic agriculture seems to be a success story. Organic farming
offers a more sustainable alternative to conventional
agricultural production (see Mäder et al., 2002) and has
experienced considerable growth since the 1980s in
many regions of the world. In the European Union (EU),
almost 4% of all utilized agricultural area was cultivated
organically by 2003 (see European Commission, 2005)
and several European countries like Switzerland, Lichtenstein or Austria had even reached a share of about
10% (see Schneeberger et al., 2002; Willer and Yussefi,
2005). The growth of organic production has had
numerous positive consequences. First of all, a substitution of conventional agricultural production by organic
production benefits the environment, for example, due to
the avoidance of artificial fertilizers and chemical pesticides. Additionally, the growth of organic production is
accompanied by an opening of the market to new customers (e.g., by the sale of organic products in conventional supermarkets or the rise of organic supermarket
chains). Moreover, the growth out of the niche may help
to reduce barriers to the adoption of organic farming by
conventional farmers, as its image becomes less arcane
and as interpersonal information on organic farming
becomes more easily available to farmers (see e.g.,
Rogers, 1995 for the effect of interpersonal communication on the adoption of an innovation).
In the late the 1990s, however, some researchers began
to argue that the growth in organic farming may lead to
some undesirable consequences as well (see e.g., Buck
et al., 1997; Tovey, 1997). Organic farming, they posit, is
incorporating more and more elements of industrial
agriculture and thereby lessening its sustainability, a
process commonly termed ‘‘conventionalization.’’
In their notion of conventionalization, Buck et al.
(1997) concentrate on changes in the political economy
96
Henning Best
of organic farming in California. With regard to production, they expect organic agriculture to be restructured following the economic imperatives of commodity
production. Agribusiness is entering the field and
‘‘finding ways to industrialize organic production’’ (Buck
et al., 1997: 4), thereby introducing methods of production which Guthman (2004) describes as ‘‘organic lite.’’
Smaller organic producers may be unable to compete
with the higher efficiency of those relatively large and
specialized growers. In order to survive economically,
the smaller ones have to adjust their farming practices.
As a consequence, a dynamic in the organic sector is set
in motion. This dynamic may consist of two analytically
distinct yet not mutually exclusive phenomena: assimilation and bifurcation. In the bifurcation scenario, smaller
producers have to switch to alternative (presumably
relatively low-profit) products and/or strengthen their
connection to the local market. Sometimes, as in the
United States, some of these farmers strictly choose direct marketing and even forgo certification as organic.
Although Buck et al. (1997) note such tendencies towards bifurcation among organic farmers, their central
argument implies assimilation of organic farming to
conventional practices. Besides growth in farm size,
specialization and input substitution, assimilation (and
thus conventionalization in a strict sense) leads to a
higher mechanization of agriculture, the rise of contract
growing, a decrease in direct marketing and numerous
other changes in distribution and marketing. In the long
run, Buck et al. even fear a relaxation of organic standards.
The work of Buck et al. has sparked an ongoing debate
about the empirical and theoretical validity of the conventionalization hypothesis. Two arguments are central
to the debate. The first argument deals with validity and
normative aspects of the conventionalization hypothesis.
Whereas Buck et al. and Guthman imply that the
described structural changes (growth, mechanization,
etc.) are bad and ‘‘more conventional,’’ these changes
can also be interpreted as the modernization or professionalization of organic farming (see Darnhofer, 2006).
As all certified organic farms, be they ‘‘deep organic’’ or
‘‘organic lite,’’ have to operate according to organic
standards, the structural changes may, contrary to the
conventionalization argument, lead to desirable consequences. Professionalization could result in more efficient and sustainable production, lower prices for the
customers, and concurrent growth in the market, thus
resulting in an aggregate increase in animal welfare and
environmental protection. The normative aspect of the
argument by Buck et al. and Guthman expresses the
expectation that the socioeconomic consequences of
organic market growth include the replacement of small
farms with larger farms, family farming with capitalist
entrepreneurship, and direct relations between farmers
and customers with alienated market relationships. Thus,
as one reviewer noted, the social and cultural benefits of
organic production would be lost in a conventionalized
setting.
The second argument centers around the question of
whether conclusions derived from the California case
study can be applied to other regions as well (see
Michelsen, 2001a). Based on a study of the development
of organic farming in New Zealand (NZ), Coombes and
Campbell (1998) question this applicability. They posit
that the recent penetration of organic farming by corporate actors (in NZ) has not led to a dilution of organic
standards, but has caused organic agriculture to evolve
into two separate directions: agribusiness relying on export-oriented production and a domestic market supplied
by small-scale growers. Hall and Mogyorody (2001)
reject the hypothesis of agribusiness entering the organic
sector for Ontario, Canada. They do, however, find a
tendency among field-crop farmers towards increased
farm size, higher mechanization and specialization on
export-oriented produce. Using a wider notion of
conventionalization, their findings can be interpreted as
tendencies towards conventionalization. With this
broader definition of the conventionalization scenario,
organic farming is becoming a slightly modified version
of modern conventional agriculture (Hall and Mogyorody,
2001; see also Milestad and Darnhofer, 2003) without the
presumption of active involvement of agribusiness corporations.
Following this strand of research, conventionalization
tendencies could also be the result of the adoption of organic
farming by formerly conventional (family) farmers, who are
not deeply convinced of organic principles. Factors leading
to this development may be price premiums, government
subsidies for organic farming, and the persistent crisis of
conventional agriculture. However, one should be aware
that there are alternative theoretical explanations for differences between early and recent adopters of organic
farming. Padel (2001) interprets these differences in the
context of the adoption/diffusion model (see Rogers, 1995).
She concludes that one needs ‘‘to recognize that a shift in
motives, farm, and social characteristics among those converting to organic farming is a typical feature of any diffusion process, and not an inherent shortcoming of those
currently converting’’ (Padel, 2001: 57).
While the criticism on the conventionalization
hypothesis, as outlined above, mainly points to theoretical shortcomings, the discussion is hindered by a lack of
empirical data on the topic. Therefore, this paper seeks to
contribute to the discussion by presenting an empirical
study of the development of organic farming in three
West German regions (North Rhine-Westphalia, Hesse,
and Lower Saxony).
If the conventionalization hypothesis holds, differences between organic pioneers and farmers who
Organic agriculture and the conventionalization hypothesis
Development of organic farming in the regions
studied
The beginning of modern organic farming in Germany
can be traced to the end of the 1920s. Culturally, its
emergence is to be seen in the context of the life-reform
movement and Rudolf SteinerÕs anthroposophy.1 Economically, the emergence can either be interpreted as a
reaction to problems of decreasing soil fertility and the
corresponding reduction in yields or it can be understood
as an activity against the first stages of structural crisis in
the agricultural sector (see Vogt, 2000). Throughout most
of the 20th century, however, organic farming remained
in a very small cultural and economic niche. A more than
marginal position, and a corresponding perception by the
general population, was only reached by the end of the
1980s. Significant milestones of the development include
the introduction of government subsidies in 1989 and the
commencement of EU regulation of organic agriculture
in 1993.
In 1988, there were about 2000 organic farms in
Germany. According to public statistics (see SOEL,
2004), their number had doubled by 1992, yielding
annual growth rates of about 20%. Since then, there has
been considerable growth of the organic sector. On the
national level, the number of certified organic farms has
1800
Hesse
North Rhine-Westphalia
Lower Saxony
Germany
(divided by 10)
1600
1400
No of organic farms
recently converted to organic farming can be expected.
On the one hand, the structure of newly converted farms
would be expected to resemble conventional farms more
than traditional organic farms. These newly converted
farms should exhibit higher specialization in crop and
livestock production, a bigger farm size, and avoidance
of traditional channels of distribution like direct marketing. On the other hand, one would expect the new
organic farmers to adhere to the productivist paradigm:
they would be relatively indifferent towards the organic
movement as well as less concerned about the environment and the environmental impacts of farming (see
Lund et al., 2002 for congruent data, but Michelsen,
2001b for conflicting evidence). The aim of the paper is
to assess whether the differences in farm structure and
ideological orientation (as implied by the conventionalization hypothesis) can be found in German organic
farming.
The paper will first provide some background information on the development of organic farming in Germany
and the regions studied. Then some aspects of the methodology of the study will be described and discussed. The
presentation of empirical results starts with an analysis of
differences in farm structure, followed by an examination
of changes in farmersÕ ideological and organizational
commitment to organic agriculture. The paper ends with a
discussion of the empirical results.
97
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
1995
Figure 1.
2004).
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
Development of organic farming (Source: SOEL,
almost tripled in the last 10 years. Certified organic farms
numbered more than 16,000 by the end of 2003 and
corresponded to 4% of all existing farms. The development of organic farming in Germany and the studied
regions is presented in Figure 1.
As the conventionalization hypothesis was first formulated with the California case in mind, some remarks
on differences and commonalities between California
and West Germany seem worthwhile.2 A major commonality between German and US organic agriculture is
its rapid growth since the 1980s (for the US development
see Klonsky and Tourte, 1998; Haumann, 2005). In
California as well as in Germany, organic farming has
boomed with growth rates around 20%, and had reached
a remarkable market share by the year 2000. Although
certified organic farming accounts for only 1% of California farms, the organic market is larger than this figure
implies because only slightly more than 60% of CaliforniaÕs organic farms are certified (Klonsky and Tourte,
1998). Bearing that in mind, the percentage of organic
farms is roughly comparable between California and
West Germany. The major dissimilarity, however, is the
political economic structure of agriculture. Whereas ‘‘it is
widely recognized that industrial-capitalist agriculture
has taken root earliest and most thoroughly in California
and other areas of the sunbelt’’ (Buttel et al., 1990: 95),
the operation of paid labor, one characteristic feature of a
capitalist economy, is relatively unusual in West German
farming. The 360,000 farms in West Germany hired
about 350,000 paid workers in 2003, including 250,000
seasonal workers (see DBV, 2002; BMVEL, 2004);
Martin (2001) reports 550,000 laborers employed by
36,000 California farms in 1997. Therefore, California
agriculture is far more dependant on paid labor than
German agriculture.3 Additionally, California farms are,
on average, bigger than German farms: conventional
farms in California operated on an average of 140 ha of
98
Henning Best
land as compared to 29 ha in West Germany and organic
farms averaged about 41 ha in California as compared to
34 ha in West Germany.
Nonetheless, the overall development of German
organic farming was similar to the California case. In
both areas, there has been strong growth and concurrent
changes in both the marketing and the distribution of
organic products. The advent of organic supermarket
chains and increasing sales of organic products in
conventional supermarkets as well as in discount markets
illustrate these trends. Therefore, it may well be that the
organic production sector has not only grown in numbers, but considerably changed. Before turning to an
empirical assessment of eventual changes, some aspects
of the empirical data used for this investigation should be
discussed.
Methods
Data collection
The following analysis is based on a mail-in survey of 973
organic farmers (310 of them full time) in three West
German regions (North Rhine-Westphalia, Hesse, and
Lower Saxony) conducted in winter/spring 2004.4 A list of
1500 certified organic farms was compiled using address
data supplied by the government authorities concerned
with organic certification. The primary operators of these
farms were contacted by mail and sent a fully structured
questionnaire. The questionnaire focused on farm structure, perceived consequences of the conversion, farmersÕ
attitudes, their social network, and socio-demography.
The survey was designed following DillmanÕs ‘‘Tailored
Design Method’’ (see Dillman, 2000). Four hundred and
fifty-nine farmers actively or passively refused to take part
in the survey. Another 27 farmers could not be contacted
under their registered address and 45 were no longer
farming or did not do farming as a business (e.g., sociotherapeutic institutions, gardeners, and the like). Consequently, the survey yielded an adjusted response rate of
about 68%. The gender distribution of the sample is unequal, but representative for the reference population:
88% of the primary farm operators in the sample are male,
12% female.
The data used for the purposes of this paper were
originally gathered as part of a larger research project
with a different focus (the adoption of organic farming,
see Best, 2006). As a consequence of that focus, the
sample was limited to farms that registered with the
government inspection agency in 2000, 2001 and 2002.
Registration with the inspection agency can be necessary
for two reasons: either the farm is being converted to
organic farming and thus must be newly certified or the
registration entry for the farm has to be modified due to
changes in certain aspects of the farm. When the latter
occurs, a new registration (Änderungsmeldung) will
suffice. In general, there are two reasons for the necessity
of such a registration modification. The most frequent
reason is that, due to operational changes on the farm, it
falls into a different category and different inspection
rules have to be applied (as stated in Annex III of the EU
Regulation on organic farming, see European Commission, 1991).5 The second, less frequent reason for a new
registration is a change-over to another private inspection
body.
The resulting sample consisted of roughly 55% farms
that had converted to organic agriculture in the period
between 2000 and 2002 and 45% farms that had converted earlier. Although, due to the sampling frame described, the sample of farmers that converted prior to
2000 cannot be regarded as randomly drawn, no severe
bias in the results is expected for two reasons.
The first of these reasons concerns the farm structure.
One could assume that those farmers who underwent an
organizational or operational change after some years of
organic farming are generally more economically active
than the average early adopter. They may put more effort
on developing their farm economically and thus be more
likely to adapt to changes in the market. In this case, the
results may be biased, but the bias would only serve to
reduce the differences between early and late adopters.
This is because early adopters who quickly react to
market changes should have a higher probability of being
‘‘conventionalized’’ than other early adopters.
The second reason that no severe bias is expected
concerns environmental attitudes. There is no compelling
reason to believe that the farmersÕ ideological orientation
varies systematically with the necessity of registration
changes. If it does vary, one would expect the affected
farmers to be more economically oriented and thus less
concerned with the environment than the average organic
farmer.
In summary, a severe bias in the data should not be
expected. If there were any bias, however, it should be in
the direction of lower environmental concern and a more
conventional farm structure. This leads to the conclusion
that, if the differences stated by the conventionalization
hypothesis are found in the sample, they should exist in
the population as well and might even be more
pronounced.
Measurement of important variables
The most important independent variable in this study is
the year of conversion to organic farming (collected in
the survey using an open question). The farms were
grouped into four classes by the year of conversion: pre
1993, 1993–1997, 1998–2000 and 2001 onwards.
Unfortunately, the class intervals could not be held
Organic agriculture and the conventionalization hypothesis
Results: Structural and ideological changes
in German organic farming
able to account for disparities between old and new
adopters, structural and operational characteristics of
farms are compared based on the categorized year of
conversion.
Since the structural development of full-time farms can
be regarded as crucial to a possible conventionalization
of organic farming, the following analyses were calculated separately for part-time and full-time farmers. Due
to the fact that part-time farmers have a second source of
income, they are not as affected by market pressures as
full-time farmers. Additionally, one would expect parttime farmers to be less likely to invest large amounts of
capital in the economic development of their farms.
Therefore, it can be expected that market driven changes
in the organic sector, such as conventionalization, can
first and foremost be observed among full time-farmers.
The average farm size remained more or less constant
at about 70 ha among full-time operated farms that
converted to organic farming prior to 2001 (see
Figure 2). In the period since 2001, the average size has
increased to 96 ha. Looking at the 90th percentile instead
of the mean value shows that this increase is largely due
to the conversion of some very large farms, which were
cultivating more than 200 ha of land. A categorization of
the land into cropland and grassland reveals that the increase cannot be contributed to a specific type of land.
Instead, a tendency is observed in which operators of
bigger farms of either type are more likely to adopt organic agriculture. No such growth in farm size can be
observed with regard to part-time farms. Over the years,
the average farm size has remained largely constant at
around 23 ha, with the 90th percentile at around 50 ha.
For full-time farms, the recent increase in size coincides with some tendencies towards specialization (see
Table 1). When asked about what kind of farm they
operate, roughly 27% of the full-time farmers in the
group with the longest experience in organic farming
250
mean
90th percentile
200
f arm siz e in ha
constant and had to be increased in the groups of earlier
adopters to ensure acceptable cell frequencies. In the
sample, non-representative in this regard, 12.7% of all
farmers adopted organic agriculture prior to 1993.
Between 1993 and 1997, 14.4% converted to organic
farming while 34.6% did so between 1998 and 2000. Of
the farmers surveyed, 38.3% converted only recently.
The dependent variables or indicators for a conventionalization of organic farming refer to farm structure,
organizational aspects, and ideology. All indicators were
measured to reflect the situation at the time of the survey
(2004).6
The questionnaire included several inquiries as to
different aspects of farm structure, including full-time vs.
part-time farming, the size of agricultural land (differentiated in cropland, grassland, and fallow land), the selfassessed type of farm (mixed, fodder crop, cash crop,
livestock, vegetable, fruit growing or wine growing), and
the number of livestock on the farm (fattening bulls,
suckler cows, dairy cows, finishing pigs, farrowing sows,
poultry, and laying hens).
Organizational attachment to the organic movement
was defined as membership in an organic farming association.
To measure their environmental attitudes, the respondents were asked to rate several items dealing with
general and farming-specific environmental topics on a
five point Likert-type scale (a complete list of the items is
given in the appendix). Nine items were used to construct
a scale of general environmental concern (see Diekmann
and Preisendörfer, 2000). The scale of agricultural
environmental concern was comprised of seven items
(see Vogel, 1999a; Best, 2006). The general items
addressed topics such as limits to growth, the environmental conditions of the next generations, and willingness to accept a reduced standard of living in favor of the
environment. The farming specific items referred to
environmental impacts of conventional farming, the use
of chemical fertilizers and pesticides and similar topics.
Both scales are internally consistent (CronbachÕs
alpha > 0.8) and range from 1 to 5. High values indicate
high environmental concern.
99
150
100
Farm structure
50
This section will present an overview of some changes in
the structure of organic farms found in the regions surveyed. According to Hall and Mogyorody (2001: 404),
one of the key questions with regard to conventionalization is whether organic farms increase in size and become more specialized as the organic sector grows. To be
0
until 1992
1993-1997
1998-2000
2001 and later
year of conversion
Figure 2.
farms.
Development of the size of full-time operated
100
Henning Best
Table 1. Selected farm characteristics (proportion in %).
Pre 1993
Full-time farming
Part-time farming
Of full-time farms
Mixed farm (self-assessed)
No livestock
Livestock specialization (1 kind of livestock)
No grassland
No cropland
Direct marketing
Of part-time farms
Mixed farm (self-assessed)
No livestock
Livestock specialization (1 kind of livestock)
No grassland
No cropland
Direct marketing
N
1993–1997
1998–2000
2001 and later
40.0
60.0
33.9
66.1
40.9
59.1
33.4
66.6
26.8
2.4
23.8
0.0
35.7
39.0
18.0
12.2
29.3
12.2
34.1
41.5
19.3
10.1
19.3
8.4
41.2
27.6
15.0
13.9
23.2
17.6
29.6
21.7
13.3
3.1
30.2
6.3
58.7
29.0
108
14.1
5.0
20.0
2.5
63.8
40.5
122
17.4
5.8
30.2
5.2
64.5
34.3
293
12.4
7.9
27.0
7.0
62.3
23.9
325
reported operating a mixed farm. The share of mixed
farms, following the self-assessment of the farmers, has
considerably decreased over time. Only about 18–19%
of the farms operated on a full-time basis that converted
between 1993 and 2000 were of a mixed type, and that
share dropped to 15% for farms converting to organic
agriculture after 2000. Additionally, the rate of farms
practicing direct marketing has considerably dropped,
from 39% to 22%.
Corresponding tendencies towards specialization can
be found using other indicators. With the exception of
those farms that converted between 1998 and 2000, the
rate of full-time farms that do not raise livestock has
continuously increased. Reaching almost 14% in the
latest period measured, the number of full-time farms not
raising livestock has risen by 12% in comparison to the
oldest organic farms measured. This result is in line with
an increase in farmers specializing in the cultivation of
cropland (and, therefore, not owning any grassland). On
the other hand, there is no general tendency of newer
farms to specialize in grassland or in raising a single kind
of livestock.
With the exception of a higher specialization on
grassland, none of the previously described tendencies
can be found among part-time farmers.
It must be noted that the percentages presented in
Table 1 are not sensitive to small numbers of highly
specialized farms converting to organic agriculture. If a
few very big corporate farms converted to organic
farming, Table 1 would prove unable to provide that
information. However, a closer inspection of the data
reveals that a small number of farmers, specializing in
mass-production of livestock, have indeed adopted
organic farming since 2000. Four farms producing more
than 10,000 chickens per year converted to organic
methods, with three of them producing between 30,000
and 50,000 and one claiming to produce 150,000. One
farm produces 250 fattening-bulls annually and another
two farms report 160 bulls. There are three newly converted farms producing more than 1000 hogs and similar
developments can be observed with regard to laying
hens. Clearly, organic farms raising livestock and poultry
on such scales are far from the ideal-typical mixed organic agriculture and closely mirror the conventional
large-scale production of agricultural commodities.
In summary, a number of structural changes implied
by the conventionalization hypothesis were found in the
regions studied. First, new organic full-time farms are, on
average, slightly bigger and more specialized than older
ones. A decline in mixed farms and a higher rate of farms
concentrating on the cultivation of cropland or farms not
raising any livestock is seen. Second, the full-time
farmers who recently adopted organic agriculture
increasingly refrain from direct marketing. Third, a small
number (less than a dozen) of farms specialized in the
large-scale production of livestock and other animal
produce entered the organic market since 2000. Although
all farms comply with the codified organic standards, the
structure of the latter group closely resembles conventional agriculture. Furthermore, these large farms are
more likely to combine organic and conventional agriculture (about 30%), a practice very untypical of organic
farms in Germany (94% of all farms in the sample are
fully organic).
Environmental concern and attachment to the organic
movement
Having shown that there are differences in the structure
of old and new organic farms, the question of whether or
Organic agriculture and the conventionalization hypothesis
m em bershi p i n organi c organi z ati ons %
80
70
60
50
40
30
full-time farmers
20
part-time farmers
10
0
until 1992
1993-1997
1998-2000
2001 and later
year of conversion
Figure 3.
Membership in organic organizations.
ge ne ra l env ir onme ntal c onc er n
(1 =low, 5 =high)
3.9
3.8
3.7
3.6
3.5
3.4
3.3
3.2
3.1
3
2.9
until 1992
full-time farmers
1993-1997
1998-2000
year of conversion
part-time farmers
2001 and later
conventional farmers
4
agricultural e nvironmenta l conce rn
(1=low, 5 =high)
not corresponding differences with regard to membership
in organic movement organizations and environmental
attitudes can be observed as well. Although there is no
direct, one to one relationship between attitudes and
action, the importance of attitudes for the prediction of
behavior is well established in the literature (see Ajzen,
1991 for a general treatise, for farming practices see e.g.,
Vogel, 1996b or Willock et al., 1999).
The development of membership in organic farming
associations is shown in Figure 3. There is no consistent
trend over time. About 69% of the early organic fulltime farmers are members of such an organization. The
proportion of organized farmers slightly decreases in the
following years and rises again to 70% among the late
adopters. This same trend can be observed among parttime farmers, the sole difference being a lower overall
membership rate of around 40–50%.
It should be noted that there may be some bias in these
numbers. Pioneering organic farmers, who switched to a
different inspection body, are overrepresented in the
sample, with the result that their organizational level may
be underestimated (that is, the farmer switched inspection
bodies and left the organization). Nonetheless, with more
than 70% of the new full-time organic farmers being
members of organic associations, the attachment to the
organic movement remains strong.
Figure 4 summarizes the development of environmental concern among organic farmers. There has been a
slight decline of environmental concern over time. Fulltime farmers who adopted organic farming before 1997
show average scale values of about 3.8, those converting
between 1998 and 2000 show values of roughly 3.7, and
the most recent organic farmers scored show values of
3.6 on the scale. However, the differences between the
groups are relatively small and not statistically significant
(P = 0.14).7 Furthermore, even the newest organic
farmersÕ environmental concern is slightly higher than
the concern of the average population (about 3.5, see
BMUNR, 2004) and remarkably higher than among
conventional farmers (3.1).
101
3.8
3.6
3.4
3.2
3
2.8
2.6
2.4
2.2
until 1992
1993-1997
1998-2000
2001 and later
year of conversion
Figure 4.
Development of environmental concern.
Similar tendencies exist with regard to agricultural
environmental concern. The longest organic farmers
show the highest concern (full-time: 3.9; part-time: 3.7),
and, among full-time farmers, a constant decline to a
scale value of 3.5 is observed. The difference between
most recent and most experienced full-time organic
farmers is statistically significant (P = 0.05), albeit relatively small. It is reassuring to note, that in spite of the
reduction of farming-specific environmental orientation,
the average new organic farmer is still extraordinarily
more concerned about the environmental impacts of
farming than the average conventional farmer (2.4).
Despite only minor reductions in average values, there
are differences in the distribution of environmental concern between groups. As organic agriculture increases its
market share, there is a steadily growing share of fulltime farmers who adopt organic farming and who show
an environmental concern lower than that of the average
conventional farmer (see Table 2). This share has grown
from about 12% of the early adopters to 19% of the new
farmers and has more than doubled with regard to agricultural environmental concern (4.8% compared to
10.2%).
Although failing to reach statistical significance, this
development is quite troubling, especially if one bears
102
Henning Best
Table 2. Percentage of organic farmers with lower environmental concern than average conventional farmers.
Until 1992
1993–1997
1998–2000
2001 and later
11.9
4.8
9.8
7.3
17.6
5.0
19.4
10.2
17.5
6.4
42/63
21.3
5.0
41/80
18.0
2.3
119/172
16.3
4.7
108/215
Of full-time farmers
General environmental concern
Agricultural environmental concern
Of part-time farmers
General environmental concern
Agricultural environmental concern
N (full-time/part-time)
the remarkably low level of environmental concern of
conventional farmers in mind. Obviously, there is a
growing number of full-time farmers moving to organic
agriculture who neither care about the environment in
general nor about the environmental impact of their
profession.
No such development is apparent for part-time farmers. While there is a relatively large percentage of farmers
with a low general environmental concern (ranging from
16% to 21%), the rate of part-time farmers with a low
agricultural environmental concern is small in all categories. Although there is some variation over time, no
consistent decline in the environmental concern of parttime farmers is observed.
The fact that a growing number of (full-time) farmers
with weak environmental concern have adopted organic
farming raises the question of that groupÕs reasons for
adoption. To answer this question, the farmers were divided into two groups based on their general environmental concern. A farmer was classified as having a
‘‘low’’ environmental concern if he or she had a scale
value lower than that of an average conventional farmer
(2.4) and was classified as having a ‘‘high’’ environmental concern otherwise. Figure 5 shows the categorized answers to an open question for the reasons for
conversion and compares this with high versus low
environmental concern.
2.1
2.8
family health
low env. concern
high env. concern
4.1
secure future of the farm
6.5
8.3
6.1
food scandals
environment / animal
welfare
14.6
43.6
economic problems
(conventional)
16.7
11.7
18.8
extensive before
9.7
25
subsidies
13.3
economic improvement
(organic)
35.4
19.8
0
10
20
30
40
50
proportion in %
Figure 5.
Motivations for adopting organic agriculture.
As could be expected, the unconcerned group is, first
and foremost, motivated by economic considerations.
These farmers adopted organic farming because they
expected economic improvement (35.4%) or higher
subsidies (25%), because they had operated the farm
extensively before (and therefore could optimize subsidies by converting to organic farming, 18.8%) or
because of economic problems with conventional agriculture (16.7%). Less than 15% mentioned environmental or animal welfare related reasons for the adoption
of organic agriculture. For all other farmers, the main
reason for adopting organic farming was to improve
environmental impact or heighten animal welfare
(43.6%). While economic considerations are certainly
important for those farmers as well, they do not take a
dominant position.
Summary and discussion
To evaluate recent developments of organic agriculture in
three German regions, survey data of 973 certified organic farmers (310 full-time farmers) was analyzed.
Using the so-called conventionalization hypothesis as a
basis, the study investigated whether there were changes
in the structure of newly converted organic farms, whether there was a penetration of the organic sector by
business-oriented corporate actors, and whether a decline
in pro-environmental attitudes was present.
Three results suggest that the current situation is
characterized by tendencies towards the conventionalization of organic production.
First, since 2000 a number of large and highly
specialized livestock and poultry farms have entered the
organic market, paralleling trends outlined by Buck et al.
(1997) for the California vegetable production.
Second, there is a general trend among the recent
adopters towards larger and more specialized farm
structures as well as an alienation from the traditional
marketing channels of organic farming. Over the years,
there has been a decrease of mixed farming and an
increase in farms not raising livestock and without any
grassland.
Organic agriculture and the conventionalization hypothesis
Third, an increasing share of full-time organic farmers
(up to 19% of the recent adopters) exhibits low environmental concern. That is, their pro-environmental
attitudes are less pronounced than that of the average
conventional farmer. The same tendency, though to a
lesser extent, is apparent with regard to attitudes towards
the environmental impact of farming. This group of
farmers, albeit contrasting from the above mentioned
group of industrial farmers, takes a clearly business-oriented viewpoint towards organic farming.
These trends, however, are only valid for a fraction of
new organic farmers. First of all, the trends outlined
above only apply to full-time farmers. Among part-time
organic farmers, as expected, no shift towards a more
‘‘conventional’’ ideology or farm structure was observed.
Additionally, the majority of all farmers, even of recent
adopters, does share the values of the organic movement.
The decline in average environmental concern can
presumably be attributed to the increasing share of
business-oriented farmers. This, in turn, implies that the
pro-environmental attitude among the majority remains
strong. Nonetheless, the shift towards less multifunctional, larger farms converting to organic agriculture
should be interpreted as an indicator of changes in
organic production.
If the development were characterized as the conventionalization of organic farming, this would lead to a
number of important questions. How does the West
German case compare to studies of conventionalization
in other regions which exhibit a different structure of
conventional agriculture? Is it really conventionalization
we are observing? How can the data be interpreted with
reference to the available causal theories of conventionalization?
The logic of the conventionalization hypothesis, as
formulated by Buck et al. (1997) and Guthman (2004),
draws mainly on internal dynamics of the organic sector.
Buck et al. begin with the observation that California
organic farming is penetrated by agribusiness corporations. They argue that these capitalist enterprises use their
market power to change the whole sector. For two reasons, however, the data presented in this paper should not
be interpreted as supporting Buck et al.Õs argument. If
this exact process is to be termed conventionalization, the
data lend only moderate support for the conventionalization hypothesis at the present state of affairs.
In the first place, the agricultural structure in West
Germany as in most other regions is completely different
from the California case. As Wells (1996: 2) notes, ‘‘[it
is] the state of California, where capitalist agriculture has
reached a developmental apex. (...) In many ways, its
dominant agricultural pattern approximates the conditions of industrial capitalism.’’ Yet, large parts of West
German agriculture are still characterized by simple
commodity production, with 94% of all farms being sole
103
proprietorships, most of which are family based (see
BMVEL, 2004: 21). Accordingly, only a handful of
capitalist farms, most of them large livestock producers,
could be identified in the sample. These farms, constituting a very small minority, should not be expected to
fundamentally change the whole organic sector at present. It should, however, be kept in mind that if a larger
number of industrial producers choose to adopt organic
agriculture in the next years, the Ôinvisible hand of the
marketÕ and economies of scale may well force other
organic farmers to implement changes that enforce
commercial efficiency. In that case, the causal relationship posited by Buck et al. would be valid for the German case as well.
Secondly, the data presented reflect a dynamic between
conventional agriculture and organic agriculture. Almost all new organic farmers are former conventional
farmers. Thus, even if the tendencies described on the
last pages are observed, they cannot be interpreted to
mean that organic farming as a whole has changed. All
one can say is that the characteristics of the adopters have
changed. That is, while the longer organic farmers continue to farm as they used to, new entrants to the organic
market show characteristics other than those embodied
by previous adopters, such as larger farms, less direct
marketing, and more specialization among others.
Although these changing characteristics of new adopters
might lead to an internal dynamic in the future, as
described above, the data do not show that this process
has started. On the contrary, the results show that early
adopters have been, for instance, operating more mixed
farm operations than recent adopters. Future research
would ideally utilize time series or panel data to answer
the question of whether the early adopters have to adapt
to a new, more conventional way of organic production
or not. This research could more adequately account for
the process character and the internal dynamic as formulated by the conventionalization hypothesis in its
strictest form.
When comparing the results to recent developments in
New Zealand (see Coombes and Campbell, 1998), the
German case is different as well. There is no bifurcation
into ‘‘deep organic’’ farmers producing for the domestic
market and ‘‘organic lite’’ farmers supplying the global
market as there is in New Zealand. While there are differences between early and late adopters with respect to
their marketing channels (like direct marketing), a concentration on export-oriented production is unusual for
West German organic farmers.
A comparison with the development in Ontario, Canada (see Hall and Mogyorody, 2001) is more complex. In
both regions, a small number of industrial producers who
made the transition to organic farming could be identified. In both regions, their number has not yet reached the
level at which their competition may become a problem
104
Henning Best
for smaller farmers. Whereas Hall and Mogyorody could
find only little support for new converters being larger
and more specialized, these tendencies clearly exist in the
West German study region.8
In summary, in all regions discussed (California, New
Zealand, Ontario, and West Germany) there were tendencies that could be named conventionalization in a
very broad sense. Yet the tendencies are quite different in
each region. All in all, the common ground seems to be
that organic agriculture is becoming a more interesting
option for conventional farmers. But should this very
basic process really be termed conventionalization? I
believe it should not. If this process were to be called
conventionalization, then conventionalization is indeed
ubiquitous. Growth of the organic sector would almost
automatically lead to conventionalization, rendering the
whole concept useless. A meaningful definition should,
as noted by Darnhofer (2006), at least require a undermining of the principles of organic farming when
speaking of conventionalization. Progress in farming
techniques and change in farming structures within the
organic paradigm could then be separated from conventionalization. At the same time, the definition should be
broad enough to allow regional variation. In this notion,
growth and change of the organic sector may lead to
conventionalization, but they do not necessarily have to.
The further development of organic farming can be
expected to vary between countries and regions, dependent on factors like state intervention and the overall
structure of conventional agriculture. In settings with a
developed capitalist agriculture like California, neoMarxist theories (like those used by Guthman and Buck
et al.) may prove useful. If conventional farming is
highly industrialized, there is a good chance that industrial farms will start to produce organic food just as they
would produce any other agricultural commodity. If a
critical mass is reached, the resulting economic pressure
on the earlier organic farms may be strong enough to
change the whole organic sector and to undermine the
principles of organic agriculture. In a setting with conventional farms that are typically relatively small, privately owned and low in capital expenditure, as in the
West German case, it is more likely that the difference
between the old and the new organic farmers will not be
great enough to start the conventionalization dynamic. Of
course, there will be change as a larger share of formerly
conventional farms adopt organic agriculture, and these
farms will surely differ from the organic pioneers. Even
if the new entrants are ‘‘more conventional,’’ the development trajectory of organic agriculture may be different
from the conventionalization scenario.
In the end, it seems that the current state of conventionalization theory can be characterized by Fisher and
FreundenburgÕs view of ecological modernization theory:
‘‘[the concept] is ultimately likely to prove neither
completely correct nor completely incorrect; instead, the
ultimate verdict is likely to be, Ôit depends.Õ If that is
indeed the case, then it would be highly beneficial to
devote a significantly larger fraction of our effort to
studying the more specific factors upon which it depends’’ (Fisher and Freudenburg, 2001: 706). To analyze
these factors, comparative studies on the development of
organic farming in different regional, political, and economic settings seem particularly useful. The first step in
that direction, however, should be a more precise conceptualization of ‘‘conventionalization’’ and a thorough
theoretical assessment of the driving forces.
Acknowledgements
Henning Best wishes to express his gratitude to the Fritz
Thyssen Foundation that supported the empirical study
underlying this paper. Earlier drafts have benefited from
comments by Alexandra Nonnenmacher and three
anonymous reviewers. Farhad Ferdowsian and Sarah A.
Mekjian were of great help in improving the language
and writing style of the paper.
Notes
1. Anthroposophy is a ‘‘philosophy based on the view that the
human intellect has the ability to contact spiritual worlds’’
(Britannica, 2006). SteinerÕs quasi-religious philosophical work
includes, among other things, guidelines for a form of organic
farming called biodynamic agriculture (see Steiner, 1993).
2. As there are large differences in farming structure between
West Germany and East Germany, all of the following is
valid for West Germany only. Agriculture in East Germany
has historically been, and still is, organized in larger units,
be it under feudal, socialist or capitalist economic regimes.
3. It must be noted, however, that this difference is in part due
to the concentration of fresh fruit and vegetable production
in California.
4. The study of organic farmers was accompanied by a study of
826 conventional farmers (471 of them full-time) using a
slightly modified questionnaire. In this paper, the data on
conventional farmers is used only as background information for comparison of the level of environmental concern
between organic and conventional farmers.
5. An example will serve to clarify the matter. If a certified
organic vintner bottled his own wine, his/her vineyard used
to fall into category ‘‘AB.’’ If this vintner later decides to
outsource the bottling, the category changes to ‘‘A’’ and the
vineyard has to be newly registered with the inspection
agency.
6. As it cannot be assessed whether earlier organic farms or the
attitudes of the farmers have changed since the adoption of
organic farming, this should be kept in mind as a possible
source of bias.
Organic agriculture and the conventionalization hypothesis
7. The failure to reach statistical significance is most likely due
to the low sample size of full-time farmers. If an ANOVA is
estimated for the pooled sample of full and part-time farmers, the more recent farmersÕ general environmental concern
is significantly lower than that of the earlier farmers.
8. It should be noted, however, that in West Germany, an
average organic farm is larger than a conventional farm
(34.4 ha vs. 29.4 ha, see Statistisches Bundesamt, 2004),
whereas the reverse is true in Ontario, Canada. In that
respect, an increase in farm size is not necessarily an
indicator of conventionalization. As such, West German
organic farms would have to shrink in order to become
more conventional.
Appendix: Items used for the scale of environmental
concern (translated from German)
General environmental concern
‘‘When I think about the environmental conditions
under which our children and grandchildren will have
to live, I am worried.’’ ‘‘If we continue to behave the
way we used to do, we are heading towards an ecological disaster.’’ ‘‘When reading newspaper articles on
environmental problems, or when watching corresponding telecasts, I often become indignant and
angry.’’ ‘‘There are limits to growth which our industrialized world already has exceeded or soon will approach.’’ ‘‘Up to now, the greatest part of the
population does not behave very environmentally
friendly.’’ ‘‘In my opinion, the dimension of ecological
problems is exaggerated by the environmentalists.’’
‘‘Politicians are still doing by far to less to protect the
environment.’’ ‘‘In favor of the environment, all of us
should be willing to cut down on our standard of
living.’’ ‘‘Environmental measures should be enforced
even if there is a loss of jobs.’’
Agricultural environmental concern
‘‘Modern agriculture damages biotopes and contributes
to the loss of wild animals and plants.’’ ‘‘Synthetic fertilizers and pesticides derogate the natural fertility of the
soil and decrease product quality.’’ ‘‘If you use chemical
substances in agriculture, you work against nature.’’
‘‘The contamination of the ground water by fertilizers is
worse than many people are willing to realize.’’ ‘‘Even if
errors are made once in a while, farmers are the best
conservationists.’’ ‘‘Synthetic fertilizers and pesticides
do not have harmful effects. They facilitate quality production.’’ ‘‘The use of chemical substances in farming
makes sense if it yields more than it costs.’’
105
References
Ajzen, I. (1991). ‘‘The theory of planned behaviour.’’ Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 50(2):
179–211.
Best, H. (2006). Die Umstellung auf ökologische Landwirtschaft als Entscheidungsprozess. Wiesbaden, Germany:
VS-Verlag.
BMUNR (Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety). (2004). Umweltbewußtsein in
Deutschland 2004: Ergebnisse einer repräsentativen
Bevölkerungsumfrage. Government report, Bonn, Germany:
Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz und Reaktorsicherheit.
BMVEL (Federal Ministry of Consumer Protection, Food and
Agriculture). (2004). Ernährungs- und agrarpolitischer Bericht der Bundesregierung. Government report, Berlin,
Germany: Bundesministerium für Verbraucherschutz, Ernährung und Landwirtschaft.
Britannica (2006). ‘‘Anthroposophy.’’ Encyclopædia Britannica
Online. Retrieved from http://www.britannica.com/eb/article–
9007798 on October 23, 2006.
Buck, D., C. Getz, and J. Guthman (1997). ‘‘From farm to
table: The organic vegetable commodity chain of Northern
California.’’ Sociologia Ruralis 37(1): 3–20.
Buttel, F. H., O. F. Larson, and G. W. Gillespie (1990). The
Sociology of Agriculture. New York, New York: Greenwood
Press.
Coombes, B. and H. Campbell (1998). ‘‘Dependent reproduction of alternative modes of agriculture: Organic farming in
New Zealand.’’ Sociologia Ruralis 38(2): 127–145.
Darnhofer, I. (2006). ‘‘Organic farming between professionalisation and conventionalisation. The need for a more discerning
view on farmer practices.’’ In: C. B. Andersen, L. Elsgaard,
L. S. Soerensen, and G. Hansen (eds.), Organic Farming and
Rural Development. Proceedings of the European Joint
Organic Congress, May 30–31, 2006 (pp. 156–157). Odense,
Denmark: European Joint Organic Congress. Retrieved from
http://orgprints.org/7390/ on December 1, 2006.
DBV (German FarmerÕs Association) (2002). Situationsbericht
2003: Trends und Fakten zur Landwirtschaft. Bonn, Germany: Deutscher Bauernverband.
Diekmann, A. and P. Preisendörfer (2000). Umweltsoziologie.
Eine Einführung. Reinbek, Germany: Rowohlt.
Dillman, D. A. (2000). Mail and Internet Surveys: The Tailored
Design Method. New York, New York: Wiley.
European Commission. (1991). Council regulation (EEC) No 2092/
91. Retrieved from http://www.europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/consleg/
main/1991/en_1991R2092_index.html on January 9, 2006.
European Commission. (2005). Organic farming in the European Union. Facts and figures. Retrieved from http://europa.eu.int/comm/agriculture/qual/organic/facts_en.pdf
on
January 9, 2006.
Fisher, D. R. and W. R. Freudenburg (2001). ‘‘Ecological
modernization and its critics: Assessing the past and looking
toward the future.’’ Society and Natural Resources 14(8):
701–709.
106
Henning Best
Guthman, J. (2004). ‘‘The trouble with ÔOrganic LiteÕ in
California: A rejoinder to the ÔconventionalizationÕ debate.’’
Sociologia Ruralis 44(3): 301–316.
Hall, A. and V. Mogyorody (2001). ‘‘Organic farmers in
Ontario: An examination of the conventionalization
argument.’’ Sociologia Ruralis 41(4): 399–422.
Haumann, B. (2005). ‘‘North America.’’ In H. Willer and M.
Yussefi (eds.), The World of Organic Agriculture Statistics
and Emerging Trends 2005, (pp. 159–172). Bonn, Germany:
International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements
(IFOAM).
Klonsky, K., and L. Tourte (1998). ‘‘Organic agricultural production in the United States: Debates and directions.’’
American Journal of Agricultural Economics 80(5): 1119–
1124.
Lund, V., S. Hemlin, and W. Lockeretz (2002). ‘‘Organic
livestock production as viewed by Swedish farmers and
organic initiators.’’ Agriculture and Human Values 19(3):
255–268.
Mäder, P., A. Fließbach, D. DuBois, L. Gunst, P. Fried
U. Niggli (2002). ‘‘Soil fertility and biodiversity in organic
farming.’’ Science 296: 1694–1697.
Martin, P. (2001). ‘‘Labor Relations in California Agriculture.’’
University of California Institute for Labor and Employment.
The State of California Labor, 2001. Retrieved from http://
repositories.cdlib.org/ile/scl2001/Section7 on November 18,
2006.
Michelsen, J. (2001a). ‘‘Recent development and political
acceptance of organic farming in Europe.’’ Sociologia Ruralis 41(1): 3–20.
Michelsen, J. (2001b). ‘‘Organic farming in a regulatory perspective: The Danish case.’’ Sociologia Ruralis 41(1): 62–84.
Milestad, R. and I. Darnhofer (2003). ‘‘Building farm resilience: The prospects and challenges of organic farming.’’
Journal of Sustainable Agriculture 22(3): 81–97.
Padel, S. (2001). ‘‘Conversion to organic farming: A typical
example of the diffusion of an innovation?’’ Sociologia Ruralis 41(1): 40–61.
Rogers, E. M. (1995). Diffusion of Innovations. New York,
New York: The Free Press.
Schneeberger, W., I. Darnhofer, and M. Eder (2002). ‘‘Barriers
to the adoption of organic farming by cash-crop producers in
Austria.’’ American Journal of Alternative Agriculture 17(1):
24–31.
SOEL (Stiftung Ökologie & Landbau). (2004). Ökologischer
Landbau in Deutschland: Übersicht. Retrieved from http://
www.soel.de/oekolandbau/deutschland.html on July 30,
2005.
Statistisches Bundesamt (2004). Landwirtschaft in Zahlen
2003. Wiesbaden, Germany: Statistisches Bundesamt.
Steiner, R. (1993). Spiritual Foundations for the Renewal of
Agriculture. Junction City, Oregon: Biodynamic Farming and
Gardening Association.
Tovey, H. (1997). ‘‘Food, environmentalism and rural sociology: On the organic farming movement in Ireland.’’ Sociologia Ruralis 37: 21–37.
Vogel, S. (1999a). Umweltbewußtsein und Landwirtschaft.
Theoretische Überlegungen und empirische Befunde. Weikersheim, Germany: Markgraf Verlag.
Vogel, S. (1999b). ‘‘FarmersÕ environmental attitudes and
behavior. A case study for Austria.’’ Environment and
Behavior 28(5): 591–613.
Vogt, G. (2000). Entstehung und Entwicklung des ökologischen
Landbaus im deutschsprachigen Raum. Bad Dürkheim,
Germany: SÖL.
Wells, M. J. (1996). Strawberry Fields: Politics, Class, and
Work in California Agriculture. Ithaca, New York: Cornell
University Press.
Willer, H. and M. Yussefi (eds.). (2005). The World of Organic
Agriculture. Statistics and Emerging Trends 2005. Bonn,
Germany: International Federation of Organic Agriculture
Movements (IFOAM).
Willock, J., I. J. Deary, G. Edwards-Jones, G. Gibson, M. J.
McGregor, A. Sutherland, J. B. Dent, O. Morgan
R. Grieve (1999). ‘‘The role of attitudes and objectives in
farmer decision making: Business and environmentally
oriented behaviour in Scotland.’’ Journal of Agricultural
Economics 50(3): 286–303.
Address for correspondence: Henning Best, Institute for
Applied Social Research, University of Cologne, Greinstr. 2,
D-50939, Cologne, Germany
Phone: +49-221-4704398; Fax: +49-221-4705169
E-mail: [email protected]
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.